1/3 pay zero for radiohead's new release.

[sbs]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

"act now, supplies are limited!"

a few posts back i said i'd try getting more info about the selling of the info those of you who signed up for the download had submitted. i've spoken to the friend that gave me the info but alas i cant give you proof nor the destination; i cannot vouch for this personally, it comes from a friend who works for the management company of one band who are friends with radiohead's management company. it is therefore, at best, of debatable content...

but

as i understand it, the info submitted by each downloader (who paid x or nothing for the download) was sold on by radiohead.

ok, i know i am not adding anything to the argument. nor am i trying to undermine what radiohead are doing (as if I could!). to me its all business, if they can make a good living out of this then more power to them. am i gonna sit here and bitch about their manipulation (cynical or otherwise) of their audience? no.

[chris carter]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Not at all.

They're creating a supply limit to increase the demand.


It's like Kiss doing a farewell tour. They're done several. Eventually Radiohead will rerelease the album "due to demand" or they'll do a record deal with it now that they've squeezed the juice from the fruit and the record label can make due with what's left.

Either way....

if they are creating demand to squeeze it before a re-release with a traditional record, it's STILL an indicator that it didn't go all the well otherwise why bother?

That said, I really don't think they are trying to increase demand. If that were the case they would have announced it differently. Consider that the only people that GOT this notice are people who already downloaded it and thus are on the mailing list. If they really wanted to create the demand they would state it on the inrainbows website. This LOOKS much more like they want to kill the download thing, but are afraid (and justifiably so) that if they do it without any notice whatsoever that there will be some backlash.

[sbs]

Originally Posted by chris carter

the only people that GOT this notice are people who already downloaded it and thus are on the mailing list.

last i heard several million people are on this mailing list, so "only" seems like the wrong word.

[chris carter]

Originally Posted by sbs

last i heard several million people are on this mailing list, so "only" seems like the wrong word.

Doesn't matter. My point is they sent this e-mail to people who have already BEEN there. If you are trying to increase the demand for vacation homes in Lake Tahoe, you don't send notices to people that already have homes there. You send them to people who DON'T have homes there. My point is that from a marketing standpoint it just doesn't make any sense to do it that way if they are just trying to increase demand. There are many many much better and more effective ways that take little or less effort. Why try and increase demand for downloading the album with people who ALREADY DOWNLOADED it??

[bobwarren]

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

Who cares? The other 2/3's care. But it's common knowledge that 1/3 of society are ignorant freeloaders who just can't wrap their minds around the concept that it costs money to produce a CD. Isn't it funny how some people go through their whole lives with the social maturity of a child?

Are you surprised? 2/3 or less of americans pay for goods and services disrtributed by our government to the "underprivileged". Why not entertainment? The only diference is as a Radiohead fan, you can decide whether to pay or not. Taxes, well...Sorry. Didn't mean to get politacal. Good for Radiohead and Trent and Madonna! Independent is the way to go. Even if it is en vogue to do so now. Maybe Major labels will change business practices. Hard to be optimistic, though.

[sbs]

Originally Posted by chris carter

Why try and increase demand for downloading the album with people who ALREADY DOWNLOADED it??

the email mentioned above is advertising a tour, not the album.

[chris carter]

Originally Posted by sbs

the email mentioned above is advertising a tour, not the album.

Further underscoring my point. They are announcing the closure of the download site in the quietest way possible.

[theblue1]

Having lived with the album for a while, now, I'm glad I didn't plunk down a huge amount for it (I gave the $6 I thought reasonable under the circumstances and which was better than they would have pulled in from a conventional deal) -- since I pretty much never listen to it, now.

I was enjoying it a fair amount at first but it was so fatiguing to listen to -- and so loud I couldn't put it in a playlist with the other music I listen to (unless I put it in with the latest Modest Mouse or Interpol in which case the fatigue level wen through the roof).

After considered thought, I'd pay extra for a version that was not compressed to shit.

[Dysanfel]

I love this discussion. Its not unlike realizing the ship you are on is sinking and trying to figure out whether to go down with the ship or dive overboard and drown.

[soulata]

Originally Posted by JP11

I hope they just plug the hole that is p2p, albums go back to being a set price, or whatever price anyone wants to sell at, and we all get back to listening and making music. I'm sick of the whole thing.

I don't agree here (well, maybe about p2p).

I much prefer iTunes and eMusic services to "set album prices". And that's purely because

a) there's not a lot to choose from in the shelves
b) if it's a turkey, I can delete it knowing it didn't cost me too much (when bought over eMusic f.i.)
c) prices here range from 8 eur (rarely) to 20 eur, mostly being in the 16 to 20 eur range. It's just too much. 10$ (8 eur) is fine though.

k

[Tom Hakala]

I'm digging Saul Williams style (Saul Williams). You can have 192mp3 for free (Radiohead was 160) and if you pay 5 bucks you'll get the FLAC version. *thumbs up*

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by chris carter

Either way....

if they are creating demand to squeeze it before a re-release with a traditional record, it's STILL an indicator that it didn't go all the well otherwise why bother?

That said, I really don't think they are trying to increase demand. If that were the case they would have announced it differently. Consider that the only people that GOT this notice are people who already downloaded it and thus are on the mailing list. If they really wanted to create the demand they would state it on the inrainbows website. This LOOKS much more like they want to kill the download thing, but are afraid (and justifiably so) that if they do it without any notice whatsoever that there will be some backlash.

According to one post they've made a $40 million profit off of 700,000 boxed sets. They had 1.2 million downloads of the album, so that puts them at platinum status in a month, something that almost no albums have done in almost the entire year. That seems reasonably successful to me.

They're talking about limit the boxed set, so pushing it as limited supply to people who have the downloads, pushes them to buy a second copy directly from the band now or never.

[sbs]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

According to one post they've made a $40 million profit off of 700,000 boxed sets. They had 1.2 million downloads of the album, so that puts them at platinum status in a month, something that almost no albums have done in almost the entire year. That seems reasonably successful to me.

They're talking about limit the boxed set, so pushing it as limited supply to people who have the downloads, pushes them to buy a second copy directly from the band now or never.

I think the average price paid for the download was $3 (or was it £3?) thats still more than they'd ever see per album through a major. (and I know thats turnover not profit but with $40million made on box sets, the album production distribution costs are covered easily)

what's your idea of successful Chris?

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Having lived with the album for a while, now, I'm glad I didn't plunk down a huge amount for it (I gave the $6 I thought reasonable under the circumstances and which was better than they would have pulled in from a conventional deal) -- since I pretty much never listen to it, now.

I was enjoying it a fair amount at first but it was so fatiguing to listen to -- and so loud I couldn't put it in a playlist with the other music I listen to (unless I put it in with the latest Modest Mouse or Interpol in which case the fatigue level wen through the roof).

After considered thought, I'd pay extra for a version that was not compressed to shit.

Damn...I was about to buy it to see what the experiment was all about (and to be one of those members of the public who honor those who trust us), but over-compression is a big tutt for me. When will they ever learn?

[PDC]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I couldn't disagree with you more about Radiohead but I totally agree with this:

Isn't that what radio is for? Isn't that what going to the record store and listening/talking to the great music sluts is for? Oh wait. All the good stuff is gone. I guess you are right.

[alex3368]

Sorry if I go a little off-topic, but..

I bought the entire pack, a little to support the band, a little to spit in the Major labels face and also to test how this brand new vinyl release sounded on my old beloved McIntosh stereohttp://www.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/nu/icon5.gif
Well, needless to say the production is stellar as usual for Mr Nigel, but, my god, how much (stupidly)Depressing RH are!
My wife is pregnant, so we have good old Frank (not Zappa)on the turntable to welcome our little kid... Or Mozart, or Miles, or the "guys" (Beatles)...Ella and Louis, Pink Floyd, you know, good old simple stuff to feed our little bastards!
Well this afternoon she stepped into the room "what the $%$ is this $££$%&?!!!"
LOL she is not into music (you know what I mean...) but...
How can I blame her???!!!
I love sad music, as every Jobim (and whatever else) lover do, but my gosh, this is really like shooting at my poor scrotum (don't even remind me Sigur Ros and all that big-production-shitty-songwriting crap)...
I wasn't angry enough to spend the time to write this thig until I stepped into this topic:
Beatles 1966
After a short moment of real joy, now I'm REALLY depressed!

(sorry for my $%&& english, I'm from %$&%ing Italy)